|
Originally Posted by Pilotpip
(Post 1594313)
Guess what the assessment (you voted for) did? It hired an attorney who specializes in labor contracts. Maybe you should have been paying a little more attention because this was before CM decided to use the negotiating committee as his personal revenge platform. Maybe you should have payed a little attention years ago when Sowell and Moline were spending thousands of your dollars making non-binding handshake deals that left your contract so open to interpretation by the company it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
|
Originally Posted by Pilotpip
(Post 1594313)
Guess what the assessment (you voted for) did? It hired an attorney who specializes in labor contracts. Maybe you should have been paying a little more attention because this was before CM decided to use the negotiating committee as his personal revenge platform. Maybe you should have payed a little attention years ago when Sowell and Moline were spending thousands of your dollars making non-binding handshake deals that left your contract so open to interpretation by the company it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
|
Originally Posted by Loon
(Post 1593920)
I'm a YES vote
|
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1594250)
8,000,000 sigining bonus. About 2200 pilots? About $3600 per pilot? That's less than the new hire bonus. Wow. This thing is atrocious. It should get voted down 95-5. IBT should be decertified for taking the companies offer and putting it in TA form without even negotiating.
|
Originally Posted by spuzzyair
(Post 1594240)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeaselBoy Utipia? Is that when UltiPro works perfectly? Signing bonus needs to be above what they are giving to the new hires off the street. Period. And? I'm willing to send this back to the Company to get it fixed. This will easily be a seven year contract, if not ten. I get we are not going to have a mainline contract, but at the end of the day, my paycheck needs to be slightly higher than what SkyWest is making now. Right now this contract doesn't even cover the inflation from the 2003 CBA. The Company is desperate to get this contract done. They'll be just as desperate after we vote this one down. I'd rather wait six months to a year for a decent contract to work under for the next seven years than start a crappy contract tomorrow. We pay the least amount of dues than any other unionized carrier. If you feel that is too much, you can resign your union membership at any time. How can I resign my union membership? | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Of course, after you do that you don't get to vote yes, or no, on any contract, LOA, etc. You feel you deserve to be paid more than SkyWest, or you are saying in order for it to keep people from leaving and to attracting new hires it needs to pay more than SkyWest?? |
When do you vote and when will the results come in?
|
Originally Posted by ThrustMonkey
(Post 1594659)
I would love....LOVE to see you break down each section of that craptastic TA and explain why you think each bullet point warrants a yes vote. No seriously, I DARE you! No more general "I'm a yes vote" or "I'm voting it in because I have a hard-on for CM, the IBT and all that it entails". Just and intelligent, logical, point by point breakdown of each proposal and why you think it benefits the pilot group so much so it deserves a thumbs up. You owe it to the rest of that pilot group why you are about to slap each one of them in the face after 7 years of heartache. Shame on you.
I'm a YES vote I "double dog dare you" !! |
Outsider looking in, I wish you guys the best as it is going to be a tough decision. I read the "TA highlight" pages and wonder who it was written by as it seems very biased towards Captains. There is a lot more focus on "top end" pay scales but I don't think you guys have very many people at that end of the scale, meanwhile you have A LOT of people that were hired in the 2005-2007 range. If you track this longevity throughout the TA there isn't much of a bump in pay, especially if they already fly the 170.
Again, I hope you guys get the best contract possible but this doesn't look very impressive to an outsider (especially after the length of time it took to get to this point). |
Originally Posted by Loon
(Post 1594600)
I voted against it: no expiration date.
Originally Posted by loon
(Post 1594600)
It hired a lawyer? Then why is every update signed by CA DS and CA EG? Can you answer me that, sir? Our NC is pilots; you obviously don't work here. Go fishing or go do what one is supposed to when retired.
For someone who no longer works there, I seem to have a better pulse on the situation than you do. |
Thats incorrect. The assessment stops after amalgamation. Considering that will never happen, it is now a 100% open ended assessment. Also it was sold to us as a way to secure bill wilder as our attorney. Turns out wilder hasnt worked on our negotiations in a very long time. While I dont agree with loons yes vote, he is actually correct in saying the union is stealing that money. As far as dan and eve, their great experience produced one of the worst ta's we could have imagined. They will hopefully be removed after the ta is voted down.
|
If "the union" was actually a union rather than 2000 people complaining about the couple dozen who actually try to make a difference, this TA might have come a lot quicker and looked a lot better.
|
Originally Posted by Hetman
(Post 1594986)
If "the union" was actually a union rather than 2000 people complaining about the couple dozen who actually try to make a difference, this TA might have come a lot quicker and looked a lot better.
|
Originally Posted by flyguy23
(Post 1595013)
Thats BS. There isnt anything anyone could have done to get a ta quicker and certainly not better. These select few drafted and fully support a ta that ****ed off over 2000 pilots simultaneously. The complaining is expected and justified. We would have been better off remaining at a stalemate.
|
Originally Posted by flyguy23
(Post 1595013)
Thats BS. There isnt anything anyone could have done to get a ta quicker and certainly not better. These select few drafted and fully support a ta that ****ed off over 2000 pilots simultaneously. The complaining is expected and justified. We would have been better off remaining at a stalemate.
You do not understand the concept of a union. That lack of understanding on your part, as well as the 1999 others, is the reason what you mistakenly call "the union" is unable to meet your strident demands for what you believe others should deliver to you without any effort other than paying dues. The bylaws contain a procedure for recalling the leadership. Instead of whining on the internet about how you have been failed, recall and replace the leadership and do the job right. |
Oh you must be a union volunteer. Thats the party line these days right? If you dont volunteer, you have no right to criticize? Its an old and very tired line union guys love to use. You volunteered to be a leader and do a job on behalf of the members. That job entails receiving criticism and praise as all leadership positions do. If you didnt want that, you shouldnt have taken a position where you are guaranteed to get it. Its the extreme arrogance of thinking you are right when your entire membership is against you that got our current volunteers in this mess. The 2000 you have a problem with contain some extremely intelligent and experienced people who pay for their right to express how they feel. Volunteering is not a pre req.
|
One more thing, 2000 are most definitely supposed to complain when a dozen union members are leading the group down a dangerous path. Blindly following union leaders, volunteer or not, is a one way ticket to corruption and theft that we saw not long ago. People have such short memories. Arrogance is not a strong enough word to describe how you feel about this.
|
Volunteer? For a committee? That is lame and everyone knows it. This is not about an individual failing to volunteer; it is about a bargaining unit failing to be a union.
If you are unhappy with your leadership the mechanism is in place to correct that. So correct it. Or you can whine on the internet. Your choice. |
One more thing: BB & co are playing you like a drum.
|
Originally Posted by Hetman
(Post 1595280)
One more thing: BB & co are playing you like a drum.
|
Originally Posted by ThrustMonkey
(Post 1594659)
I would love....LOVE to see you break down each section of that craptastic TA and explain why you think each bullet point warrants a yes vote. No seriously, I DARE you! No more general "I'm a yes vote" or "I'm voting it in because I have a hard-on for CM, the IBT and all that it entails". Just and intelligent, logical, point by point breakdown of each proposal and why you think it benefits the pilot group so much so it deserves a thumbs up. You owe it to the rest of that pilot group why you are about to slap each one of them in the face after 7 years of heartache. Shame on you.
This really makes no sense. What does it matter if I were to break it down in bullet points? I can only cast one vote(and that vote is yes). As far as me "owing" anything to the pilot group: the way I see it is that this pilot group(or at least the idiots who voted for the assessment) owe me the money that I have had to cough up for their stupidity. |
Originally Posted by Pilotpip
(Post 1594889)
Actually, it did have an expiration. Upon ratification of a new CBA. Don't like it, lead a charge to have the assessment removed.
The committee, is chaired by Dan and Eve. That's why they sign it. While line pilots, this isn't their first rodeo and Eve is far more qualified to be there than the average line pilot because of her previous career. You seem to make the assumption that it's just a couple line pilots sitting there. You're wrong. Various committees were consulted, explained their stances and a number of attorneys and experts from other airlines were consulted as well. Had you and others taken a little more interest in happenings there, you would have had a TA long ago. Nobody wanted to run for the eboard, and this is what you ended up with. For someone who no longer works there, I seem to have a better pulse on the situation than you do. |
Originally Posted by zoooropa
(Post 1595289)
The LBFO from February 2013 had higher pay rates than this TA. How in the world does that happen?
But see my prior posting on what may be happening big picture here. |
Originally Posted by Loon
(Post 1595329)
This really makes no sense. What does it matter if I were to break it down in bullet points? I can only cast one vote(and that vote is yes). As far as me "owing" anything to the pilot group: the way I see it is that this pilot group(or at least the idiots who voted for the assessment) owe me the money that I have had to cough up for their stupidity.
|
Everyone, please pray about this. I am confident that once you do, God will tell you to vote yes.
God bless, Bryan |
Originally Posted by ThrustMonkey
(Post 1594659)
I would love....LOVE to see you break down each section of that craptastic TA and explain why you think each bullet point warrants a yes vote. No seriously, I DARE you!
|
Never argue with an idiot. He'll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
Only a complete moron would vote for a TA that will make you a RSV ***** every moment you're on duty, guarantee your pay raise each year is at least half of the rate of inflation (not counting the giant healthcare increase you're guaranteed to receive), with worthless rigs, CX by trip instead of by leg, 75% DH pay, and holes in the language so large you can fly your shiny 170 through them. Loon, your screen name is definitely appropriately chosen... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:59 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands